chapotraphouse

I’m assuming every party is honest in this context. If you just began climbing, and you decide to buy gear and attempt a difficult climb without the proper knowledge and experience

While there are riskier activities, I can't think of any that are immune to being made more dangerous by companies doing the wrong thing

There are also just stupid people. If you do everything right, and the guy you’re supervising decided to pull out his phone for a selfie or something and a breeze blows him off the mountain, I don’t think the employee/company should be responsible

How else do you test this claim (that you didn't know how to use it) otherwise though?

Perhaps in a perfect world, all organizations intending to have a risk clause (for safety, not profit of course) would need to provide licensing and testing first?

Like say there's the Hexbear Skydivers Club. The HSC would have to have standards for certification under the Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism safety guidelines, and hand these certs out to people who have done enough practice.

If someone without these certs goes splat on their own, it would likely be investigated as a tragic accident. But if someone with those certs goes splat, then there's a full investigation, and worlds_okayest_mech_pilot, the dunce that approved the comrade to skydive, is liable for punishment.

Just my random sleepy input lol

Most places require that you take a course on how to do lead-climbing before allowing you to use the gear. Or they require that you can prove you've already taken such a course.
It's like with diving in that way.

That doesn't mean there's anything stopping you from buying gear and just going out, but I feel like the "proof" would then be that it is broadly expected that you've taken a course and you didn't, which "proves" your lack of knowledge. With this "proof" it would probably be assumed that the accident was user error, rather than faulty equipment.